Higgins v. Corporation of Glasgow [1901] ScotLR 39_48 (12 November 1901)

Higgins v. Corporation of Glasgow [1901] ScotLR 39_48 (12 November 1901)

A depression of approximately four inches in a street gutter grating does not, without more, constitute actionable negligence by the local authority, as pedestrians are expected to exercise reasonable care when crossing such areas. The defect was not so substantial or in such a position as to create liability, and the authorities acted reasonably upon being notified.

Citation
[1901] ScotLR 39_48
Parties
Pursuer: Mrs Mary M'Cafferty or Higgins; Defender: Corporation of the City of Glasgow
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 November 1901
Procedural Posture
Action of Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Inner House Second Division Judgment
Outcome
action dismissed as irrelevant
Legal Topics
Reparation, Negligence, Safety of Public, Defective Street Infrastructure, Contributory Negligence
Tort Public Liability Reparation Negligence Safety of Public Defective Street Infrastructure Contributory Negligence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Mary M'Cafferty or Higgins

Pursuer

Corporation of the City of Glasgow

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action of Damages / Appeal From Sheriff Court; Inner House Second Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Corporation of Glasgow was liable in damages for injuries caused by a defective street grating
  2. 2 Whether the condition of the grating constituted actionable negligence
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer was guilty of contributory negligence

Ratio Decidendi

A depression of approximately four inches in a street gutter grating does not, without more, constitute actionable negligence by the local authority, as pedestrians are expected to exercise reasonable care when crossing such areas. The defect was not so substantial or in such a position as to create liability, and the authorities acted reasonably upon being notified.

Court Disposition

action dismissed as irrelevant

Orders

  • first plea-in-law for defenders sustained
  • action dismissed